1. Petitioner has filed this writ petition with following prayers:

1. Issue a writ of certiorari quashing the recommendation dated 30.01.2019 made by respondent No.2 vide Annexure-E bearing No.Uplok 1/DE/211/2017/ARE 13;

2. Issue a writ of certiorari by quashing the order passed by the 4th respondent bearing No. SANKYE.KRIDL/ADALITA/CR-VIJAYAPURA/2018- 19 (ev) DATED 01.03.2019 vide Annxure-F; and

3. Pass any such other reliefs as the Court deems fit in the interest of justice and equity.

2. Brief facts of the case are, while working as Assistant Engineer in Karnataka Rural Infrastructure Development Ltd.(‘KRIDL’ for short) , at Vijayapura Sub-Division, petitioner was entrusted with the work of construction of Darga Anjuman Islam Community Centre. He was required to supervise the work of construction, prepare the bills and make payment to the Contractor. One Ahmed Pasha, complained to the Hon’ble Upalokayukta that the building was constructed on the old foundation and there is difference in the measurement of the building. The building was completed during the financial year 2012-13. It was handed over to the PDO(Panchayath Development Officer) on March 3, 2014. The Additional Registrar Enquiries-13 attached to the Office of the Upalokayukta conducted an enquiry in respect of three charges framed against the petitioner. He submitted a Report to the third respondent on January 28, 2019 holding that petitioner had failed to maintain absolute integrity; and his act was unbecoming of a Government Servant and recommended for imposing punishment of withholding four annual increments and to defer the promotion for a period of two years.

3. On March 1, 2019, the Managing Director, KRIDL has passed the penalty order withholding four increments and deferring the promotion for two years. Petitioner submitted a representation to the MD, KRIDL to set-aside the punishment and the same has not been considered. Feeling aggrieved by the recommendation and the penalty order, this writ petition is filed.

4. Shri. S.K. Shivashankar learned Advocate for the petitioner submitted that:

• the recommendation made by the Upalokayuta is bad in law because, the KRIDL is an independent authority and the Upalokayukta has no jurisdiction;
• the punishment awarded is grossly disproportionate; and
• the principles of natural justice was not followed, as second show-cause notice was not issued to the petitioner.

5. With the above submissions, learned Advocate for the petitioner prayed for allowing this writ petition.

6. Ms. Nayanatara, learned Advocate for fourth respondent argued opposing the writ petition and contended that petitioner had remained absent before the Enquiry Officer. No prejudice is caused to the petitioner for want of second show cause notice. She submitted that petitioner has not pleaded the ground with regard to the second show cause notice in the writ petition.

7. We have carefully considered rival contentions and perused the records.

8. Undisputed facts of the case are, it is recorded in para 25 of the enquiry Report (Annexure-D) that the petitioner had initially appeared, but later he had remained absent. He had not cross-examined P.Ws. 1 and 2 and their testimony has remained unchallenged.

9. It was argued on behalf of the petitioner that the Upalokayukta had no jurisdiction. It is not in dispute that KRIDL is fully owned by the State Government. When the Articles of charges were served upon the petitioner, he has participated in the enquiry. He has not questioned the jurisdiction of the Upalokayukta either before the Enquiry Officer or this Court, except pleading that the recommendation suffers from infirmity and it is arbitrary (Ground No.2). Petitioner has not substantiated his contention that the enquiry conducted by Upalokayukta, is bad in law by urging any legal grounds. It is settled that the respondent No.4 being the employee can always hold an enquiry and in this case, the enquiry has been conducted by the Office of Upalokayukta.

10. Shri. Shivashankar, for petitioner has placed reliance on Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad & Ors, Vs. B. Karunakar & Others((1993)4 SCC 727 [LQ/SC/1993/843] (paras 28 and 29)) and contended that second show cause notice is necessary.

11. Adverting to para 31, of the same authority, Ms. Nayanatara has argued that this Court should not mechanically set-aside the order of punishment on the ground that Report was not furnished to him.

12. It is held in para 31 of Karunakar’s case that the court should not mechanically set-aside the order of punishment on the ground that the Report was not furnished. She has also relied upon para 24 in S.L.Kapoor Vs. Jagmohan & Ors(AIR 1981 SC 136 [LQ/SC/1980/396] ) wherein, it is held that on admitted and indisputable facts, only one conclusion if possible, the Courts may not issue its writ to compel the observance of natural justice not because it is not necessary to observe natural justice, but because Courts do not issue futile writs.

13. In the instant case, petitioner had chosen not to participate in the enquiry proceedings. The charges have been held proved. In the circumstances, we are of the view that nonissuance of second show cause notice has not caused any prejudice to the petitioner and hence, there is no ground to interfere in this writ petition.

14. Resultantly, this writ petition fails and it is accordingly, dismissed.

15. No costs.